Ask Matt: Will Trent’s Overkill, Sweeps Stakes & More

Welcome to the Q&A with longtime TV critic — also known to some TV fans as their “TV therapist” — Matt Roush, who’ll try to address whatever you love, loathe, are confused or frustrated or thrilled by in today’s vast TV landscape. (We know background music is too loud, it’s the most frequent complaint, but there’s always closed-captioning. Check out this story for more tips.)

One caution: This is a spoiler-free zone, so we won’t be addressing upcoming storylines here unless it’s already common knowledge. Please send your questions and comments to [email protected]. Look for Ask Matt columns on every other Tuesday.

What Ever Happened to Happy Endings?

Question: I bawled when Amanda died on Will Trent. Recently, it seems like characters die just to help with ratings. While I was sad this death happened. I felt it was earned. My hope is we haven’t seen the last of her. My gut tells me she becomes a new “spirit guide”. What do you think? Personally, I have loved this actress, Sonja Sohn, since her time on The Wire. — Gary T.

[An addendum from Gary arrived a few weeks later: After watching the season finale, I believe the technical term is, “they screwed the pooch.” What a cheap way to create a story.]

Matt Roush: I think the term we’re looking for here is “overkill.” I heard from other disgruntled viewers, including Carole L., who wrote, “OK. They got rid of Amanda. Hollywood purging older actresses. The norm. But Dr. Seth? Why can’t a main character be allowed happiness? How about happy agents solving crimes? Enough of this insistence that the main characters are in constant turmoil. Get to like a performer and slash. They’re dead. Jeez.”

I tend to agree with Gary’s assessment. Optics aside, the killing of Amanda had a dramatic impact that affected the entire squad, especially Will, going forward. While fans of the character will surely lament her departure, and losing someone like Sonja Sohn is a big deal, that’s part of the point. These characters live dangerous lives, and sometimes leaders fall. (Another case in point: 9-1-1.) But killing off Seth, coming so close on the heels of Amanda’s death, did feel gratuitous and needlessly random, though the time jump that followed was an attempt to soften the blow and show how Will and new mom Angie are dealing with it. Better that, I suppose, than a cliffhanger.

Awaiting Paradise on ABC

Question: I don’t have Hulu.  When Season 1 of Paradise ended, it aired on ABC. Is there any chance Season 2 will also be shown on ABC? — Yvonne C.

Matt Roush: The latest word is that ABC isn’t currently planning on showing the second season, which doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen, but I wouldn’t count on it for now. Streamers sharing their exclusive product with their broadcast siblings is still pretty rare, and while it paid off for Paradise (which, in my opinion, was even better in the second season, with storylines happening above ground as well as in the bunker), I wouldn’t expect this kind of sharing to become a habit. For your sake, I hope a window opens on ABC eventually, and they take advantage of a ready-made winner.

But this issue illustrates the changing times we live in. If a show like Lost were developed today, the odds of it airing on ABC instead of Hulu would be minuscule. Paradise would be a great asset for a network like ABC, but that’s not where the priorities lie anymore for these companies.

The Frustrating Waiting Game for Series Renewals

Question: I remember when May was an important month in the TV industry. That is when TV networks announced which shows were renewed and which were canceled for the next season. Recently, I’ve been scratching my head about how renewals and cancellations are announced. A few months ago, NBC announced the Chicago franchise was being renewed, but no word on Law & Order and Law & Order SVU, as well as other programs. I heard more recently that SVU has finally been renewed, but still no word on the mothership or a few other programs, including The Hunting Party. Meanwhile, the plug was finally pulled on Brilliant Minds and Stumble.

My question: Why the wait for these decisions? I would rather see the networks take the approach of “ripping off the band-aid” and letting viewers know which shows are coming back instead of playing this waiting game. What factors into the decision of renewing and canceling a series, in which they can do it so quickly in one case yet take so long in another? And what’s the deal with renewing programs for mid-season? I understand Ghosts and Matlock will be returning, but not until January. I thought both were strong series, but now I wonder if this is the network’s way of saying these shows are also hanging by a thread. — Rob Bob

Matt Roush: May is still an important month for setting the fall schedules, as we can see with the announcements coming out of NBC, Fox, and ABC during their presentations this week. (CBS choosing to go early and bypassing the traditional Upfront week is still something of an outlier in the broadcast world.) But each network has its own way of doing things, and each show and/or franchise has its own business relationship with the network and/or studio, and when a network has the confidence to make an early call on a show, they do it as a sign of support. They’re not timing these decisions on behalf of the consumer; they never have. Networks take many things into consideration while deciding the fate of a show and whether to keep it, move it, or replace it. (NBC moving Law & Order after SVU in the Thursday 10/9c time period in the fall surprised me.) Keeping a show like The Hunting Party in limbo, even after Monday’s schedule announcement, isn’t meant to torture its fans or (more to the point) its creators and cast but is a sign that they’re still weighing their options. (There are reports the show could end up moving to the Peacock streaming platform, like Law & Order: Organized Crime did.)

Regarding shows returning at midseason, Matlock‘s producers have said they asked for a longer break between seasons because of how they ended Season 2 with what amounts to another reinvention of the series. But don’t confuse a midseason launch with the network losing faith in a show. Example: ABC kept its successful Tuesday dramas, Will Trent and The Rookie, on the back burner until the new year this season so they could be launched with few interruptions or repeats. The networks have said for years they’re in the year-round programming business, and a midseason launch is not considered a demotion.

Fewer Comedies Are No Laughing Matter

Question: I’m sure you’ve seen that ABC is renewing Scrubs and Shifting Gears and passed on Do You Want Kids? from Rachel Bloom. I’m going to put aside the fact that I loved Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and would have almost surely watched a new Rachel Bloom show. And without seeing the pilot, I can’t make a quality judgment as to whether or not they should have picked it up. But what bothers me is the reporting that suggests this was a choice between the returning comedies and the new one. With Abbott, Scrubs, and Shifting Gears, they were three-fourths of the way to a 2-hour comedy block like they used to have for many years. I’m sorry to see ABC is apparently not interested in this programming concept anymore. It would be a lot more satisfying to have a solid two-hour comedy block than to have Scrubs and Shifting Gears both produce short orders and share the time period again. I don’t even like Shifting Gears, but I still like the idea of ABC getting back to a two-hour comedy block. Do You Want Kids? could have been the fourth.

Do you think ABC is completely uninterested in this as a goal? Or was Do You Want Kids? just not the right show to complete a four-show block? It’s amazing that Abbott Elementary has become such a flagship anchor for the network, even though it has not always had compatible companions around it. What do you think of the state of comedies on ABC right now? The same question could apply to CBS, which also has only three comedies scheduled for next season. As we’ve discussed before, I was expecting Eternally Yours to act as a companion for Ghosts instead of replacing it and pushing Ghosts to midseason. — Jake

Matt Roush: I may need to revise this response once ABC unveils its official fall lineup this week, but if ABC once again presents a lineup with only two comedies on Wednesdays, holding one for midseason, which is what CBS is doing as well (on Thursdays), I can only see it as a sad reflection on the economics and state of comedy on network TV. I don’t know why ABC passed on Rachel Bloom’s pilot, but you’d think the prospect of using Tim Allen and Abbott as comedy anchors for two solid hours would be appealing.

Come Back Soon, Lisa!

Comment: I may have expressed this to you before, but I am in awe of Lisa Kudrow. I loved this season of The Comeback so much! Her acting is often so subtle that we don’t realize how much of a genius she is. The thing is, it doesn’t look like genius on the surface, but the way she subtly reveals unexpected depths of character in Valerie Cherish is amazing, and the fact that she created and co-wrote everything as well as acted, it shows just how much of a force she is. I remember how much I enjoyed her in Mad About You, even before Friends, and I know I have told you how much I admire Web Therapy. I wish she had been more prolific, but the things she has produced are classics, I think. — D.P.

Matt Roush: I mostly agree, especially about this season of The Comeback, where once upon a time Valerie came off as ridiculously self-absorbed and delusional, this season she stepped up with complicated feelings of responsibility and compassion for her co-workers when dealing with a heartless network, a useless support system and the specter of AI. It’s a masterful performance, and as much as I admire Jean Smart and the final season of Hacks, I’d love to see the Emmy go Lisa Kudrow’s way this year.

And Finally …

Question: With all of Taylor Sheridan‘s new shows (The Madison, Dutton Ranch and even Marshals), what is happening to the show with Jimmy (Jefferson White) as the lead at the 6666 (four sixes) Ranch? I haven’t heard a thing about it. I’ve seen the actor who played Jimmy on several shows lately and it makes me wonder if the new Taylor Sheridan show is ever coming to our screens any time soon, especially since Sheridan and Paramount+ seemed to have broken up. What’s your take? — Amy D.

Matt Roush: From what I can tell, the 6666 spinoff is mired in what in industry lingo is called “development hell,” in other words, limbo. Until it’s announced otherwise, I’d consider the project on an indefinite hold, and whether it will ever see the light of day is beyond my reckoning. In a Hollywood Reporter interview, Taylor Sheridan said he has told the studio to be patient with this one, and that production of this series would require special care because, unlike its fictional counterparts on Yellowstone and the upcoming Dutton Ranch, the Four Sixes ranch in Texas, which Sheridan purchased, is a real working ranch “with real families working here. You have to respect the lineage.” I’ll take his word on it. Like many shows that take years to get produced, it will happen when it happens. If it happens.

That’s all for now. We can’t do this without your participation, so please keep sending questions and comments about TV to [email protected]. (Please include a first name with your question.)